Was apparently deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Davis. FYI, an engineer is someone who designs locomotives, not a driver (someone who drives them). How the Americans got the two confused I don't know! I also do not know the content of these pages as they were before, so if someone could give me that, thx, otherwise I may write it myself. See [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs)
I can't speak for everyone, but part of the confusion may be that for americans, the train driver is called a "train engineer". Protonk (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to userfy the content if that's what you want, but nothing in this article met WP:BIO. Are there reliable sources which suggest that it might? Stifle (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This
Oswald Stevens Nock (1959). Historical Steam Locomotives. London: A. & C. Black. p. 121.
is not really enough to hang a whole biographical article from, but clearly there is information on the history of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway that is missing from Wikipedia, and needs to be added somewhere. This
is better, although it's not obvious at first glance what M. Jones' reputation for accuracy is. Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The steamindex site is okay, he's using the right sources, but it's all a little disorganised. I would also add Bob Essery's The London, Tilbury and Southend Railway and its Locomotives as a source. Tony May (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and consider the others. (Incidentally, engineer has been used since the development of steam engines for the person who operates an engine, as well as to people who design them-- Wiktionary. The WP article on engineer needs some considerable additions made to it. See also Casey Jones & [www.trainweb.org/caseyjones/song.html verse 1 of the song].) But Whitelegg was in fact a locomotive designer, and a very eminent one. DGG (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Although Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL brings up some info, it is not clear that it all belongs to Choo Choo Whitelegg. I think it would help to see a draft article on the topic before we override AfD consensus. -- Suntag☼ 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Given the aged AfD and its mass determination and the above comments and my comments below, I now think we should let them have another crack at it in article space under DRVs substantial new information category. -- Suntag☼ 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
As above. -- Tony May 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore equally eminent, though not as much of a pioneer. . TW's son and successor. There are multitudinous sources for everything connected with UK railways, and reasonably so, considering their historic role in the development of technology and commerce. This was a really careless group AfD without sufficient attention or attempt at sourcing. DGG (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - Consensus at AfD was determined correctly. However, Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL shows some info, none of which were considered at AfD. Also, the AfD was 1-1/2 years ago and failed to explore why a train was named after Robert Harben Whitelegg. This may have turned up more reliable source material since such an event likely would be covered in a Wikipedia reliable source that would include biographical material on Robert Harben Whitelegg. Also, having a multi-million dollar train name after you presents a likelihood that sufficient reliable source material will be available for a Wikipedia article. The AfD nominator's view was opposite of this, but offered no support to show why having a multi-million dollar train name after makes it unlikely that sufficient reliable source material will be available for a Wikipedia article. That doesn't make much sense. Suntag☼ 01:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Author claims no copyright violation as he / she owns copyright. Raised by Ghgwh37, I'm just fixing the report. Unusual? QuiteTalkQu 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir:
Based on the above link, my article on tropical greenhouses was Deleted, per Rkitko. I am the author of the wiki article, and the author of the supposed "blatant copyright infringement" article. I have not copyrighted the article on my website, cuestaroble.com,(which I am the author of, by the way) thus there is no copyright infringement. This article should be replaced as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghgwh37 (talk • contribs)
Aside from the above issue, the article written duplicated information in other articles such as greenhouse and solar greenhouse (technical). It also didn't conform to many of the style guidelines established in the manual of style. It also appears to violate our original research policy in part and our policy against how-to content or instruction manuals. I hope all of this information helps. If you want any assistance in rewriting the article for use in the encyclopedia, I'll gladly help. Cheers, Rkitko(talk) 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted until and unless proper verification of usability under the GFDL is received or placed on the source website. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
